PDA

View Full Version : Ease up on the D.


Chiefnj
10-17-2005, 09:04 PM
I just finished watching the game for the first time, and I don't think all the criticism is warranted. The D came up huge; in particular Jared Allen. Allen got great pressure all game. Dalton and Browning showed an improvement in getting in the backfield. DJ and Mitchell had solid games. Knight had an excellent game as did Surtain. Even Washington looked pretty good in coverage - except for the last pass.

I was surprised the D did as well as it did in light of the fact that the offense was sputtering. They held their own. They caused the big momentum changes in the game. They scored a TD. They saved the game.

The biggest weaknesses that I saw - Wesley (still not good in coverage and took a horrible angle on the Moss TD), Bell in coverage and Dexter and Sapp in coverage.

The addition of Warfield and perhaps even Washington as a nickle back could solve a lot of the remaining defensive problems. If Gun really wanted to get bold he could try Bartee in at FS in certain passing downs instead of Wesley.

Overall, I expect an atrocious performance based on the comments on this board all morning. Instead I saw a D step up when it counted, which hasn't been done all that much the last 4 years.

bishop_74
10-17-2005, 09:12 PM
Everything you said I agree with 100%. WE are definately heading in the right direction. We just need to stop giving up the 1 play a game for over 50 yards. That is what kills our stats. It seems every game there is just one stupid mistake that kills us.

jspchief
10-17-2005, 09:13 PM
I agree that there was improved D-line play, but it was pretty sporadic.

Overall, I don't consider a good defensive performance. There just happened to be some spectacular individual efforts.

The fact of the matter is, the right side of the secondary is extremely weak. A combination of Bell, Mcleon, and Wesley (or Sapp at nickel) makes for a lot of open receivers. It's not just one guy, it's that entire half of the field. Offensive coordinators know this, and they also know we don't shift our players to opposite sides, so they can put their best receivers on the left, or in the slot and dictate complete mismatches.

Until we get at least one solid player on the right side of our secondary, our passing D is going to be exposed like areola at Madri Gras

thebrad84
10-17-2005, 09:15 PM
I agree. Our defense looked pretty good all day yesterday, other than a couple of plays. I think if we would have ended up losing this game, a lot of the blame should have been on our offense (only 2 TD's). We won't win many games if our offense only puts 21pts up on the board, this much is sure. Our team is built around our offense, NOT around our defense. We need to get our Offense in gear or we are not going to win many games period.

Coach
10-17-2005, 09:19 PM
Wasn't there 2 times that the offense was in the red-zone, and had to settle for 2 FG's?

Chiefnj
10-17-2005, 09:22 PM
Wasn't there 2 times that the offense was in the red-zone, and had to settle for 2 FG's?

Yes, and they also went three and out on at least three occassions.

Coach
10-17-2005, 09:25 PM
Yes, and they also went three and out on at least three occassions.

Yeah, I remember the 3 and outs. I was focusing towards the red zone deal. The Chiefs used to be pretty damned good on the TD/FG ratio in the red zone. Now it's just like, every time we're in the red zone, our offense sputters.

2 FG's = 6 points
2 TD's = 12 points + 2 XP = 14.

The Chiefs have got to improve that area IMHO.

milkman
10-17-2005, 09:39 PM
The Chiefs gave up over 400 yards in total offense.

That is not a good defensive effort no matter how you spin it.

There were some outstanding individual performances by Allen and Knight.
Kawika Mitchell played pretty solid.

But the fact remains, the 'Skins moved the ball with relative ease.

The turnovers saved our asses.

keg in kc
10-17-2005, 09:46 PM
I think the only thing I'm really pissed about is the screen to Moss. And that's just because I'm sick of giving up highlight plays. But otherwise, I'm fine with the game and the play of the D yesterday. But they need to get better as the year goes on.

Count Alex's Wins
10-17-2005, 09:48 PM
The turnovers saved our asses.

KC took a 28-21 lead with almost an entire quarter to play.

How many turnovers did we have in the fourth quarter?

milkman
10-17-2005, 09:51 PM
KC took a 28-21 lead with almost an entire quarter to play.

How many turnovers did we have in the fourth quarter?

How many points did the 'Skins give away by turning over the ball earlier in the game?

Count Alex's Wins
10-17-2005, 09:52 PM
How many points did the 'Skins give away by turning over the ball earlier in the game?

I think we're both right! :)

Chiefnj
10-17-2005, 09:54 PM
The Chiefs gave up over 400 yards in total offense.

That is not a good defensive effort no matter how you spin it.

There were some outstanding individual performances by Allen and Knight.
Kawika Mitchell played pretty solid.

But the fact remains, the 'Skins moved the ball with relative ease.

The turnovers saved our asses.

Washington has been putting tons of yards on every team this year, except for week 1. Unlike other teams, the Chiefs D was able to rise to the occassion and WIN the game.

keg in kc
10-17-2005, 09:54 PM
You can ask "how many points did the skins give away by turning over the ball", or you can ask "how many points did the chiefs prevent (and score) by taking away the ball". Ones as valid a question as the other.

The ball bounced our way yesterday. Nothing wrong with that.

Marcellus
10-17-2005, 09:56 PM
Yeah, I remember the 3 and outs. I was focusing towards the red zone deal. The Chiefs used to be pretty damned good on the TD/FG ratio in the red zone. Now it's just like, every time we're in the red zone, our offense sputters.

2 FG's = 6 points
2 TD's = 12 points + 2 XP = 14.

The Chiefs have got to improve that area IMHO.


The biggest difference in my opinion is that we used to RUN THE BALL
when we got into the red zone and now we don't.

Chiefnj
10-17-2005, 10:01 PM
Think of this way. In the last 3 years if KC's opposition had the ball three times in the 4th quarter and needed to score, on how many occassions would the Chiefs D pitch a shutout? The answer is NONE.

Don't expect the Steel Curtain overnight.

milkman
10-17-2005, 10:05 PM
You can ask "how many points did the skins give away by turning over the ball", or you can ask "how many points did the chiefs prevent (and score) by taking away the ball". Ones as valid a question as the other.

The ball bounced our way yesterday. Nothing wrong with that.

I get that.

My concern is that we can't rely on the ball bouncing our way like.

I do see improvement in some areas of the defense, and I also believe that we'll continue to force turnovers, but I still want to see a defense that can make stops a little more consistently than we are seeing now.

the Talking Can
10-17-2005, 10:14 PM
bottom line: the D only allowed 21 points...that's good enough for us to win

but I am still confused...we let a dust farting QB shred us for a near perfect QB rating and 3 TDs....anything less then 4 turnovers and we probably lose...our run D is legitimately better...no gaping holes on the line of scrimmage..our DTs don't get much penetration but they don't get blown off the line either...

Bell is not earning his money, imho. But I blame Gunther, mostly, I think, for being stubborn and outright stupid.

I can not believe our secondary would be that bad with Warfield lined up across from Surtain. The solution is on our bench, in street clothes.

If we can ever get our OL working again (not a given) and get someone to bitch slap Gunther, we just might make the playoffs.

Put in Warfield. Play some bump and run. Blitz Bell.

Using Bell in zone coverage IS EVERY BIT AS STUPID AS GREG ROBINSON'S SPINNER D. YES IT IS, GUN...YOU DOUCHE.

Count Alex's Wins
10-17-2005, 10:15 PM
Brunell is a changed man this year. I watched Washington play Denver and he lit them up as well. We did a better job against Portis, believe it or not, than Denver.

the Talking Can
10-17-2005, 10:17 PM
Brunell is a changed man this year. I watched Washington play Denver and he lit them up as well. We did a better job against Portis, believe it or not, than Denver.

so what?

keg in kc
10-17-2005, 10:21 PM
My concern is that we can't rely on the ball bouncing our way like.I don't think anybody has suggested that we should.

I look at the bounces yesterday as a balancing out from the two previous games, and I'm happy to say "thank you" to the gods of football and move on to next week's game.I do see improvement in some areas of the defense, and I also believe that we'll continue to force turnovers, but I still want to see a defense that can make stops a little more consistently than we are seeing now.I think the most important single move we can make is to get McCleon off the field. I can't remember the last time I saw a single player have such a negative effect on so many plays in one game, whether he was getting beat or getting flagged. He cost us punts, points and at least one turnover with his play, alone.

jspchief
10-17-2005, 10:22 PM
Ok, here's a question...

If we are allowing QBs to throw at will, and giving up 300 yards passing every game anyway, why aren't we blitzing more? What exactly do we have to lose?

When we blitz, even if we don't get to the QB, we seem to force a lot of errant throws. Sure, occasionally we're going to get burned, but how bad? How much more harm can be done?

tk13
10-17-2005, 10:23 PM
We can stop the run and force turnovers. I think those two parts of our defense are legit, and in my opinion at least they're two of the most important things you can do on defense, especially forcing turnovers. I hate that "Well if we didn't force turnovers..." argument, we should be forcing turnovers every week.

I think Gun has a master plan in mind with all of this, what it is, I don't know... everything from playing zone to not wanting to activate Warfield. I think maybe he just wants to teach these guys how to play defense without being blitz crazy. My guess would be that he doesn't want to be a gimmick-y blitzing defense... he wants to teach them how to play straight up, and allow these guys to work with each other first, before he really starts getting crazy. Maybe, I really couldn't even begin to guess though...

keg in kc
10-17-2005, 10:24 PM
The lack of blitzing is confusing to me, as well. Bell is a pass rusher more than anything else. We know DJ has corner speed. Even Mitchell can blitz. But it seems like they're all backpedaling on 99% of the plays.

Then again, maybe I'm missing it, because I have to listen more than watch lately.

Count Alex's Wins
10-17-2005, 10:26 PM
We can stop the run and force turnovers. I think those two parts of our defense are legit, and in my opinion at least they're two of the most important things you can do on defense, especially forcing turnovers. I hate that "Well if we didn't force turnovers..." argument, we should be forcing turnovers every week.

I think Gun has a master plan in mind with all of this, what it is, I don't know... everything from playing zone to not wanting to activate Warfield. I think maybe he just wants to teach these guys how to play defense without being blitz crazy. My guess would be that he doesn't want to be a gimmick-y blitzing defense... he wants to teach them how to play straight up, and allow these guys to work with each other first, before he really starts getting crazy. Maybe, I really couldn't even begin to guess though...

Maybe he wants to give opponents something different to look at than what we did all last year. Maybe he's saving that stuff for later in the year to throw teams for a loop.

Chiefnj
10-17-2005, 10:29 PM
Ok, here's a question...

If we are allowing QBs to throw at will, and giving up 300 yards passing every game anyway, why aren't we blitzing more? What exactly do we have to lose?

When we blitz, even if we don't get to the QB, we seem to force a lot of errant throws. Sure, occasionally we're going to get burned, but how bad? How much more harm can be done?


In the first half Washington was driving 80 yards before Allen finally reached in and forced the fumble and recovered it. No points.

If Gun plays aggressively and a CB gets beat early in that drive, it's 6 points.

I'm pretty sure the 35 yard pass at the end of the 1st quarter came on a blitz, where Brunnell read it, got rid of quick and Moss exploited it.

I agree that Gun needs to get a little more aggressive in games the where the front 4 aren't generating pressure, but that wasn't the case against Washington.

Chiefnj
10-17-2005, 10:30 PM
The lack of blitzing is confusing to me, as well. Bell is a pass rusher more than anything else. We know DJ has corner speed. Even Mitchell can blitz. But it seems like they're all backpedaling on 99% of the plays.

Then again, maybe I'm missing it, because I have to listen more than watch lately.

He blitzed DJ a bunch of times. He got one or two pressures.

jettio
10-17-2005, 10:34 PM
The 1995 and 1997 Chiefs Defenses gave up yards between the 20's, but forced turnovers or fg attempts instead of TDs.

This year's D is easily the best performing Chiefs' unit since 1999, with the possible exception of 2003 before Maz's injury.

The Chiefs' offense is the unit that has to do a better job.

Kendrell Bell looks heavier and slower than his days with Pittsburgh.

He may be 3-4 middle backer who needs to lose about 10 pounds.

If Warfield is playing at the level he played last year, Bell is the only player on D who needs to pick it up. Kawika is playing better, though he is still susceptible to cutback and misdirection plays.

Mr. Flopnuts
10-17-2005, 10:49 PM
I agree with a lot of what I am hearing here. It seems to me that the Chiefs defense is improved. The yards don't show it because of the 1 or 2 big plays a game we are giving up. However the TO's have gone up and that is compensatory IMO. The problem we are having is our offenses inability to move the ball the way they have in years past.

Granted this team gets off to slow starts and picks up speed as they move along, but this year they are off to a putridly poor start. I was big on the LJ train but I couldn't have been the only one watching yesterday that asked out loud "why the f*ck is Larry carrying the ball right now. He's gonna cough it up."

We also ran no sweeps to Roafs side that I remember and that has been a bread and butter play for us for years now. Combine that with the fact that Parker can't catch a pass, Gonzalez is blocking now (granted they threw more to him yesterday), and Trent isn't getting the time in the pocket he has gotten in the last couple of years, we have work to do. Seems to me the offense is what is really getting us right now. We put up 30+ points every single game again and we win.

Count Alex's Wins
10-17-2005, 10:51 PM
Granted this team gets off to slow starts and picks up speed as they move along, but this year they are off to a putridly poor start.

What. The. Hell.

We're 3-2. We were ONE AND FOUR last year.

I was big on the LJ train but I couldn't have been the only one watching yesterday that asked out loud "why the f*ck is Larry carrying the ball right now. He's gonna cough it up."


Larry was carrying the ball because Priest was averaging one yard a carry.

Mecca
10-17-2005, 11:02 PM
Without Larry Johnson we would have ran the ball for 18 yards yesterday.....yet someone asks why was he carrying the ball. I think it was pretty obvious Priest Holmes was having 0 success in the rushing game yesterday. I personally thought Johnson should have been on the field more, atleast he was gaining yards.

Mr. Flopnuts
10-17-2005, 11:03 PM
What. The. Hell.

We're 3-2. We were ONE AND FOUR last year.



Larry was carrying the ball because Priest was averaging one yard a carry.


Our defense won the game in Oakland, and yesterday IMO. Priest hasn't fumbled 3 times this year. (Don't quote me on 3, but LJ has fumbled more than once.) I just feel that if we had last years defense with this years offense we'd be 1-4 again. JMHO

KCWolfman
10-17-2005, 11:04 PM
I just finished watching the game for the first time, and I don't think all the criticism is warranted. The D came up huge; in particular Jared Allen. Allen got great pressure all game. Dalton and Browning showed an improvement in getting in the backfield. DJ and Mitchell had solid games. Knight had an excellent game as did Surtain. Even Washington looked pretty good in coverage - except for the last pass.

I was surprised the D did as well as it did in light of the fact that the offense was sputtering. They held their own. They caused the big momentum changes in the game. They scored a TD. They saved the game.

The biggest weaknesses that I saw - Wesley (still not good in coverage and took a horrible angle on the Moss TD), Bell in coverage and Dexter and Sapp in coverage.

The addition of Warfield and perhaps even Washington as a nickle back could solve a lot of the remaining defensive problems. If Gun really wanted to get bold he could try Bartee in at FS in certain passing downs instead of Wesley.

Overall, I expect an atrocious performance based on the comments on this board all morning. Instead I saw a D step up when it counted, which hasn't been done all that much the last 4 years.
:clap: :clap:

chief99
10-18-2005, 12:00 AM
This will sound weird with all the safeties we have but we need 'another' impact safety.

Gaz
10-18-2005, 06:43 AM
It seems to me that the folks who fail to see improvement in the Defense are judging by yardage.

If that is your sole criteria, then I can understand why you would not see improvement.

xoxo~
Gaz
Pretty much unconcerned with total yardage statistics.